Allahabad High Court
FAGUversusPAWAN KUMAR GANGWAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The contempt application is misconceived and dismissed as no contempt occurred.
Summary
The applicant, Fagu, sought a contempt order alleging that the respondents were interfering with his possession after a writ court stayed the order of a civil appeal that had upheld Issue No.5, which concerned the cancellation of a sale deed under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari and Land Revenue Act. The writ court had stayed only the impugned order, not any order relating to possession. The applicant argued that the respondents' actions amounted to contempt of the stay. The court examined whether the stay order extended to possession and found that it did not. Consequently, the court held that no contempt had occurred and dismissed the contempt application as misconceived.
Issues considered
- Whether the stay granted by the writ court extended to the possession of the property.
- Whether the respondents' alleged interference with possession amounted to contempt of court.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
- U.P. Zamindari and Land Revenue Act — s. 331
Subjects
- contempt
- civil court jurisdiction
- Section 331
- sale deed cancellation
- possession
- writ petition
- Article 227
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2842 of 2026
Fagu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Pawan Kumar Gangwar, District Magistrate And 7
Others .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kumar Pandey, Kamlesh Kumar
Bharti
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. The applicant, before this Court, had approached the writ Court through
Matters under Article 227 No. 6302 of 2018 challenging the order passed in
Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2015 whereby Issue No. 5 which was decided against
petitioner was confirmed by appellate court. The writ Court had stayed the
order impugned therein and following order was passed on 30.08.2018:-
"Heard Sri A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Plaintiff-petitioner is before this Court assailing the validity of the order
impugned dated 5.12.2014 passed by 4th Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Mirzapur in Original Suit No. 614 of 2009 (Fagu Vs. Punwasi)
and the order dated 28.7.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court
No. 6, Mirzapur in Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2015 (Fagu Vs. Punwasi).
Precise case has been set up by the plaintiff-petitioner that so far as the
revenue court is concerned that has no power for cancellation of a
document, which is alleged to be voidable, is maintainable in civil court
and as such the same is not barred by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act. It is contended that the issue no. 5 which has been answered against
the plaintiff/petitioner as barred by provision of Section 331 of U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act, is unsustainable and perverse finding has been recorded. As it
had been pleaded through plaint the ground on which cancellation of sale
deed was sought that the sale deed was got executed by coercion and by
playing fraud upon the recorded tenure-holder. It is also contended that
the question of jurisdiction depends upon the allegations in the plaint and
not the merits or the result of the suit (vide Bismillah versus Janeshwar
Prasad: (1990) 1 SCC 207, paragraph 9). Therefore, in a suit instituted
before a civil court for cancellation of an instrument, in respect to an
CAPL No. 2842 of 2026
2
agricultural land, if a plea with respect to the bar of section 331 of the
UP ZA & LR Act is taken, the court must first determine as to whether
from the plaint averments the instrument, as alleged, is void or voidable.
If the plaint averments go to show that the instrument is voidable at the
instance of the plaintiff(s), then the suit would be maintainable in a civil
court, but if it is alleged to be void then the Court may have to undertake
a complex exercise so as to assess whether in a given set of facts a
declaration of right or status of a tenure holder is necessarily needed or
not. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in FAFO No.
1461 of 2014 (Ganga Prasad and Another Vs. Ram Das alias Pappu and
7 Ors.) dated 14.5.2014.
The matter requires consideration by this Court.
Issue notice to the defendants-respondents returnable at an early date.
Steps may be taken within a week.
All the respondents are accorded four weeks time to file response. One
week, thereafter, for rejoinder. List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the orders
impugned shall remain stayed."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite parties are
interfering in his possession.
3. From perusal of the interim order granted by writ Court, it is clear that the
order deciding Issue No. 5 has been stayed by writ Court. There is no order
for staying the dispossession or interfering in the possession.
4. In view of said fact, no case for contempt is made out.
5. The contempt application is misconceived and stands dismissed.
May 7, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…